Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region No. 9 v. Pussar, 2017 CanLII 72907

Assessment Review Board / Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: October 24, 2017

FILE NO.: DM 2017M06

Moving Party(ies): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”), Region No. 9

Respondent(s): Antonio Pussar and Regina Pussar

Respondent(s): City of Toronto

Property Location(s): 999 St. Clarens Avenue

Municipality(ies): City of Toronto

Roll Number(s): 1904-033-560-02400-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3078879 and 3146118

Taxation Year(s): 2015 and 2016

Legislative Authority: Rule 24(e) of the Assessment Review Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, as amended

Heard: By written submission

Parties

Representative

MPAC

Katelyn Morrow

Antonio Pussar Regina Pussar

No one appeared

City of Toronto

No one appeared

DISPOSITION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY SCOTT McANSH

DISPOSITION OF MOTION

1MPAC brings this motion to apply the legal doctrine of issue estoppel to the appeals before me. Neither the City of Toronto nor Regina Pussar and Antonio Pussar made any submissions on this motion despite being provided time to do so.

2The Pussars appealed the assessment of the property for the 2013 taxation year, and an appeal was deemed for the 2014 taxation year. On February 20, 2015, Member Light disposed of both appeals in Pussar v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp. Region No. 9, [2015] O.A.R.B.D. No. 65. She found that the current value of the property on the January 1, 2012 valuation day was $348,000, and that no adjustment was required to make that assessment equitable with similar properties in the vicinity.

3The Board did not apply Member Light’s decision to the appeals for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years. MPAC argues that the Pussars should be barred from arguing those appeals because the issues have already been decided. For the reasons set out below, I agree that the legal doctrine of issue estoppel applies to these appeals.

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION OF MOTION

4MPAC relies on three previous decisions of this Board. All point to the three part test for issue estoppel, as set out by Justice Dickson in Angle v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue (M.N.R.)), 1974 CanLII 168 (SCC), [1975] 2 S.C.R, 248 at 254:

1. that the same question has been decided;
2. that the judicial decision which is said to create the estoppel was final; and
3. that the parties to the judicial decision or their privies were the same persons as the parties to the proceedings in which the estoppel is raised or their privies.

5All three parts of the test are satisfied here.

6The question before Member Light was the current value of the property on January 1, 2012 and if that current value was equitable. Those are the very issues raised in the appeals at issue here. The 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 taxation years all use the same valuation date, pursuant to s. 19.2(1) of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended.

7The decision of Member Light is final. It was not appealed or reviewed and s. 40(22) of the Assessment Act states that decisions of this Board are final.

8Finally, the parties to these appeals are the same parties that were before Member Light.

9However, it is not enough that the three factors are met. In Danyluk v. Ainsworth Technologies Inc., 2001 SCC 44, [2001] 2 S.C.R, 460, the Supreme Court stated, at paragraph 33, that the “rules governing issue estoppel should not be mechanically applied.” If the factors are all met, “the court must still determine whether, as a matter of discretion, issue estoppel ought to be applied.”

10There is nothing in the record before me to indicate that any injustice will flow from the application of issue estoppel to these appeals. Finality of litigation is the main policy goal of issue estoppel and its application to these appeals promotes that objective. The Assessment Act has created a four year period in which the same issues are in dispute each taxation year. Unless the facts underlying the dispute change, a decision of the Board will usually apply to all four years in the assessment cycle. The facts here have not changed, nor are there any special circumstances that would make the application of issue estoppel unjust.

11I therefore order that the decision of Member Light be applied to the 2015 and 2016 taxation year appeals. The current value of the property on the January 1, 2012 valuation day is $348,000, and no adjustment was required to make that assessment equitable with similar properties in the vicinity.